Karnataka High Court
Dr K S Mukunda Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1817 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. DR. K S MUKUNDA RAO
(MUKUNDA RAO IN FIR)
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
SON OF LATE K H SATYANARAYANA RAO
DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,
RESIDENT OF:
No.6, GOKULA
BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD
2ND STAGE, DHAVALGIRI EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
2. MRS. LATHA M RAO
(LATHA IN FIR)
WIFE OF Mr. SATYANARAYANA RAO
MUKUNDA RAO KODAGANUR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA RESIDENT OF:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH No.6, GOKULA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD
2ND STAGE, DHAVALGIRI EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. MR TARAKARI BASAPPA PRAKASH
(PRAKASH B T IN FIR)
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
SON OF MR. T BASAPPA
RESIDENT OF:
BASAVESHWARA NILAYA
SADA SHIVA NAGARA, DVG ROAD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024
BEHIND J M COMFORTS
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI C V NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI AND
ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE TURUVANUR ROAD, MANIYUR
CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA - 577 501.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
2. THOYAJAKSHI BAI S
DIRECTOR OF PATANJALI HOSPITAL
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING OF No.3 DAVALAGIRI EXTENSION
2ND STAGE, CHITRADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA KARNATAKA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)2) OF SC ST
(POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN
RELATION TO FIR IN CR.No.127/2024 DATED 04.09.2024
(ANNEXURE-C) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r) (s) OF SC
ST (POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 3(5), 351(2), 352 OF BNS
ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
CRL.A No. 1817 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
praying to set aside the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in
Crl.Misc.No. 1210/2024 by the Special II Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the
anticipatory bail petition of appellants sought in respect of
Chitradurga Town Police Station crime No. 127/2024 for
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (hereinafter referred to as `SC ST Act') and Section
3(5), 351(2) and 352 of BNS 2023 came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants
- accused, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and
learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 - State.
3. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint stating
that since 25 years she has been working in the Pathanjali
Hospital as a Director and Doctor. Since 10 -11 months
other Directors had started to interfere in her work. One
medical shop was in Pathanjali Hospital and accused and
son of the complainant were partners and were running
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
the said medical shop. Since some days the accused, in
order to kick out the complainant and her son from the
medical shop, started to create problems. In this
connection her son got issued a legal notice to the
accused. On 30.08.2024, as a routine, after completing
the work she went to her house and on the next day
morning she came to work and saw that the medical shop
and ICU unit was locked and empty medicine pockets were
thrown out of the medical shop. Then the complainant
enquired one Guru and watchman - Narayanappa and
came to know that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had shifted the
medicine to IC unit and locked the ICU unit. When she was
enquiring about the same, the accused came there and
abused her in filthy language by taking her caste name in
front of the Hospital on a public road and abused her as
Lambani and gave her life threat. The hospital staff
pacified the quarrel. Said complaint filed by the
complainant came to be registered in crime No. 127/2024
of Chitradurga Town Police Station. The appellants who
are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the FIR had filed a
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail and the same
came to be rejected by the impugned order which is
challenged in this appeal.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that the alleged incident has
taken place on 31.08.2024 at 05.00 am and complaint
came to be filed on 04.09.2024 and there is a delay in
filing the complaint and delay has not been explained. The
accused persons have furnished the CCTV footage of the
hospital wherein no incident has been recorded on the
date and time mentioned in the complaint. Respondent
No. 2 is working with the appellants since last 25 years
and therefore there is no question of they abusing the
complainant by taking the name of her caste. Respondent
No. 2 has given the complaint against accused No. 1 on
19.03.2024 and it has been suitably replied by accused
No. 1 by his reply dated 26.03.2024. Respondent No. 2
has filed a company petition and appellants have filed a
suit against respondent No. 2 in O.S. No. 92/2024 seeking
injunction restraining her from referring the patients to
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
some other hospital where she is treating the same
patients and the jurisdictional Civil Court has granted ex-
parte temporary injunction against respondent No.2.
Respondent No. 2 and her son have also filed a petition
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Pharmacy is inside the hospital building and it is not in
public view. As the alleged incident is not in public view,
offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act is not attracted.
On that point learned Senior counsel placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand and another
reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710. Learned Senior counsel
also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of Balaji and others Vs. State of Karnataka and
another, Crl.A. No. 118/2023 decided on 07.02.2023
wherein the anticipatory bail was granted as omnibus
allegations were made against the accused persons. The
parties have availed their remedies before the
jurisdictional Courts and Tribunal and only to see that the
appellants are harassed, a false complaint has been filed
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
against the appellants by the complainant by making
omnibus allegations. The CCTV footage furnished by the
appellants indicates that the alleged incident has not taken
place. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and
grant anticipatory bail to the appellants.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that
the delay in filing the complaint has been explained in the
complaint. The alleged incident has taken place on the
road and it is in the view of public. As the alleged incident
is in public view, offence Under Section 3 of the SC ST Act
is attracted and bar under Section 18 of the SC ST Act is
attracted. Investigation is in progress and what is the role
of each of the accused has to be ascertained during
investigation. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would
contend that there is a long standing legal battle between
the appellants and respondent No. 2. Respondent No.2
had filed a petition before the NCLT in the year 2023. The
appellants who are the Directors in the Patanjali Hospital
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
are not allowing respondent No. 2 to discharge her duties
and to work as a Director in the Hospital. On these
grounds the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
this Court has perused the impugned order, FIR, complaint
and other material placed on record.
8. Respondent No. 2 was working as a Doctor and
she is also a Director in the said Hospital since last 25
years along with the appellants. Considering the petition
filed by respondent No.2 and her son before the NCLT and
suit filed by the appellants in O.S. No. 92/2024 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court, it appears, that there is long
standing legal battle between the appellants and
respondent No. 2. Said legal battle is prior to the alleged
incident which is alleged to have taken place on
31.08.2024. Son of respondent No.2 is a partner in the
pharmacy run in the building of Patanjali Hospital along
with accused No.1 and others. A perusal of the averments
of the complaint indicates that there is shifting of
medicines in the pharmacy to ICU unit and enquiry in that
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
regard by respondent No.2 at 05.00 am on 31.08.2024. It
is the contention of the appellants that they were not
present at 05.00 am on 31.08.2024 at the Hospital and
the averments of the complaint regarding the alleged
incident are false. The appellants have furnished the CCTV
footage to the Investigating Officer. Learned Senior
counsel for the appellants submits that CCTV footage does
not contain the alleged incident which is alleged to have
taken place on 31.08.2024 in the Hospital. As per the
averments of the complaint there is omnibus allegation
against accused Nos.1 to 3 that they have abused
respondent No. 2 in filthy language taking the name of her
caste as she belongs to Lambani caste. The accusation in
the complaint against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 is omnibus.
There is no mention of any specific allegation against each
of the accused persons and therefore, it cannot be said
that each of the accused person abused the complainant
with the same words. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be
said that there is prima facie case against the appellants
for the offence under Section 3 of the SC ST Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
Therefore, the Court can consider the petition filed under
Section 482 of B.N.S.S. seeking anticipatory bail. The
offences alleged against the accused are not punishable
either with death or imprisonment for life. The appellants
are aged and working as Doctors and Directors in Patanjali
Hospital. The appellants have undertaken to cooperate
with the Police in the investigation. The appellants have
made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order
and grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.
9. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
05.10.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No. 1210/2024 by the
Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, is set aside. Consequently petition filed by
the appellants seeking anticipatory bail is allowed. The
appellants are ordered to be released on bail in the event
of their arrest in crime No. 127/2024 of Chitradurga Town
Police Station subject to the following conditions:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42536
i. The appellants shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each
with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of
the Investigating Officer.
ii. The appellants shall voluntarily appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from today.
iii. The appellants shall cooperate with the Investigating
Officer in the investigation.
iv. The appellants shall not threaten the complainant
and other prosecution witnesses.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1/2024 does
not survive for consideration and accordingly it is disposed
of.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
